My vision of the universe - this may hurt your head

[Deleted]

The fate of humanity is undecided and while it is highly unrealistic to assume an alien invasion in our lifetime will annihilate life as we know it, nuclear proliferation is increasing globally and so our knowledge of war is widening. With this increase in knowledge and power, we are able to destroy humanity through nuclear devices many times over if we chose to do so. It’s not a question of if we choose to do it; it’s a question of when we will do it. Will we survive a nuclear attack on a global scale? Probably not, no; unless there are protocols to mitigate an attack such as protection shelters, but such protection is expensive and won’t be available for you and me. If you’re rich then you’re in the ‘club’. Of course, it’s the elites then will be unaffected from a widescale nuclear attack compared to the rest of humanity. However that’s only if, not when, protection has been devised. The question of ‘are we prepared’ is perhaps imperative in assuring humanities survival.

As technological innovation increases, so does risk. However, without risk technological innovation couldn’t occur and so humanity wouldn’t develop. The proportionality between technology and risk is related to a much larger design of evolution, which in itself is a multidimensional process. Notice I used the word ‘design’ when referring to evolution. I’m inferring to the existence of an intelligent designer - not a God. We live in very complex Universe and in our knowledge of its existence, we have discovered how and to some extent why the matter within it functions, but we haven’t discovered why how the universe itself exists and came into existence. The notion of an intelligent designer is a paradox when explaining the existence of the universe. Questions arise such as, ‘if an intelligent designer created the universe, who created the intelligent designer and who created them?’ I accept the idea that the universe must have been created from something, but I can’t understand what exactly. We should dismiss any ideas of an infinite series of intelligent designers, all of which are identical and perhaps invest in a theory which views each designer as individual, unique and perhaps not intelligent at all. It is by sheer chance that you and I came into existence. If so, this can be applied to the universe and therefore, the universe came into existence from chance events and not at the will of an intelligent designer. Imagine a random arrangement of matter. This arrangement has a physical existence, but it has no human face value such that it takes the shape of a square, but in fact is not a square in the eyes of the universe. It is human nature to codify matter around us into individual groups, although this arrangement of matter is just that, an arrangement of matter.

This notion leads itself onto purely philosophical assumptions such as ‘red is not red’ and ‘a chair is not a chair. It becomes a chair if you name it that’. This is a degenerate approach to the existence of the universe as it attempts to decipher the foundations of knowledge from which we learn from until all set laws and beliefs are meaningless. New beliefs are extensions of old beliefs, and if old beliefs are defunct so are new beliefs. An extension of this theory is that humanity has learnt nothing since their existence as their knowledge is only true to Earth. This is of course, false. Mathematics is a universal language. A language which can explain the universe in some detail and its laws are consistent beyond Earth. Such as a 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks on Earth as it does on Mars. The key here is to see beyond the numerical value of the numbers themselves and picture both rocks as two separate physical quantities such that 9 rock + 5 rock = 2 rocks where 9 rock is in fact 1 rock and 5 rock is in fact 1 rock. Furthermore, 7ysyga7 rock + 637sa rock = 23sd rock. The numerical language denoted has no relevance beyond planet Earth as so this theory does relate to aforesaid philosophical notions, although if you add both physical quantities together, you will get 2 wherever and whatever those quantities are in the universe. Base 10 is only used because we have 10 fingers. This is logical. Other lifeforms in the universe could have 8 fingers and so their mathematical foundations will use base 8.

Another element in the multidimensional component of evolution is that humanity attempts to make order out of chaos. Entropy states that as the universe ages, it will become more ordered and to some degree logical. As the arrow of time continues to unfold, humanity and the universe in general becomes more ordered day by day as humanity forges its way to achieve an ordered Utopian society. Such attempts are visible today such as the EU. Equally, the expansion of the universe further separates galaxies apart and as matter condenses, stars will diminish and no longer burn. The overall process leaves the universe in such an ordered state where entropy no longer occurs and the universe ceases to exist. On a scale from 0 to 1, 0 represents the big bang and 1 denotes the death of the universe. Between 0 and 1 chaos occurs and in this chaos, an infinite number of outcomes are possible; though each outcome will always tend itself to 1. If infinity is bounded between 0 and 1, surely this is not infinity and it’s impossible for an infinite number of outcomes to exist you may ask? Your calculator can solve this problem for you. Divide any number by 0 and the answer is undefined because 0 is any and all numbers. This problem can best be pictured through an ice-cream cone. The point of the cone represents the number 1 – the end of the universe. The number 0 is any and all numbers so the bottom of the cone (the part that supports your ice-cream) represents 0 – the big bang. Beyond 0, the sides of the cone end and it’s no longer possible to understand what’s beyond this point since the physical matter of the ice-cream doesn’t exist i.e. it’s undefined. This is where the laws of the universe break down. The narrowing of the ice-cream cone represents entropy in action. As the universe ages, the number of possible outcomes decreases but remember that any outcome always converges to 1. There is still matter outside 0 and that matter is something, not nothing. Ultimately this idea implies that the universe if infinite and has no beginning but has an end. It also implies that the end is also the beginning – the singularity. Remember this ice-cream cone in bent so that the tip (1) in is underneath the base (0). Therefore 0=1. The universe is a closed cyclic system and the fact that both energy and matter are conserved proves this. This is a difficult concept to understand for many.

It is widely believed that the Universe spontaneously sprung into existence 13.7 billion years ago in a process Scientists refer to as ‘The Big Bang’. If the Universe is a closed system then all energy and equally matter is conserved and therefore finite – ‘all energy is converted from one form to another’. How can such a system arise from nothing and isn’t this a contradiction in itself? This implies that before the Universe existed, there had to be something otherwise a system whereby energy is conserved would be impossible. When referring to the Universe’s existence, it’s ignorant to assume something is impossible because it doesn’t conform to those laws within the universe. I came to the conclusion that there had to be something before the Universe by simply using deductive logic. For example, a dog and a cat come together to produce a human baby makes no logically sense whatsoever. Equally, the universe came into existence from nothing makes no sense unless nothing is something. What that something is however, is not known. Again perhaps the logical approach would be to imply that another universe existed before this one, and another before that. Eventually a ‘chain’ of universes existed and a death of one universe is the start of another. The term ‘chain’ has an element of ambiguity attached to it as this pattern may not be a linear process. The Universe could coexist alongside an infinite amount of other universes called multiverses at the same instant. These universes could potentially be identical in their nature, some could be different and some may not even exist at all. Matter in this universe could be paralleled in other Universes, such as your existence or the identical positioning and arrangement of matter. To define what existed before the Universe is essentially a meaningless question because the universe is everything and contains everything.

If the Universe is finite as opposed to infinite, when I die, I will at some point be reincarnated as the energy within this closed system is conserved.' The probability of being' born again' (given life) is somewhere between 0 and 1 as opposed to being impossible and as the universe isn't expanding for an infinite amount of time - no matter if it is spontaneously created and its mass added to the current value of the universe. So the chance of matter being arranged out of this finite matter to form life is between 0 to 1 and is dependent on its location within the universe. Life is more likely to form given sufficient conditions but as you say yourself, it's possible that stars may habour life. Therefore, the chance of life throughout the universe is increased dramatically as life may not be carbon based/dependent on water. However, one theory to the inevitable fate of our universe is heat death where all the mass in the universe is converted to energy completely. Thus meaning any reincarnation not inevitable. If all matter would remain constant then reincarnation should theoretically be inevitable and eternal life inevitable (assuming our consciousness can be reincarnated and I can still be me again), but I don't think it is. And if it were at all possible there's no reason why we don't have any recollection of ourselves prior to this life, so again it's impossible to still have the thoughts from your previous life. However, what I am suggesting is that life becomes more frequent. Imagine a finite Universe where energy within this universe is conserved. Over time, the probability of life emerging increases (perhaps entropy explains this further) but all life is independent from the other. When I was born, I was unaware of position within the Universe. If I am born again, I will again be unaware of my position. So essentially, the frequency of life increases if the universe is finite, but life occurs only once if the universe is infinite.
If there is exactly the same amount of matter inside the universe today as there was momentarily after the big bang, it is evident that it has stretched out. What causes this stretching - (Dark energy).' Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.' I will return to a proposed form of dark energy further into this. Let's presume that dark energy accelerated all the matter in our universe so that the universe is expanding.

The question is how far will the universe expand until it 'rips'? Imagine a piece of square paper with writing on. The paper is stretched uniformly in all directions and it is certain that it will rip at one point as it is stretched further. Apply this to the universe on a whole. The universe is essentially a stretched out piece of paper and the ink on the paper (the letters) means some places on the paper are heavier than others. If it rips due to gravity acting equally on space-time throughout the universe, does this create another universe as the matter from the 'ripping' universe is cascaded into the new universe through the rip (singularity). Equally black holes are 'words' on the paper. Stretch the paper uniformly and it will tear exactly where the black hole is and matter is transferred from one medium to another - from one universe to another. However spacetime only rips where the black hole is as that is the weakest point in the universe. They are the weakest because they stretch space-time so much that if the universe rips and ceases to expand, logically blackholes will be the point where it tears. Imagine twisting... a paper clip until it's weak and break.

If the universe expanded until the gravitational field reached 1 where the universe is in its ultimate state of being due to entropy or if the universe expanded so much that the gravity of a black hole was greater than the total gravity in the universe, it rips spacetime. Oppositely the point at which the universe is in equilibrium - THAT SMALL POINT where it stops expanding and begins to contract - 'the big crunch' - just that small point where displacement is 0 and where the gravitational field equalled exactly 1.
If you stretch something it will rip at the weakest place. If you stretch the universe it will rip at its weakest places - black holes. If the universe keeps expanding then spacetime should rip. I believe that the paper analogy works when describing this situation. If there's an infinite no. of black holes then an infinite no. will rip along spacetime and an infinite no. of universes are created. The black hole will grow exponentially in size as more matter is accelerated at the speed of light into another medium as spacetime rips. This could explain why the universal speed limit is the speed of light because that's the speed at which matter was transferred from the previous universe into the new expanding universe. But in this universe everything is opposite and could be the total opposite to the universe which it came from. If most of the universe was antimatter then the universe which it came from must be mostly matter. I said earlier that universes come in pairs, and one is the inverse of another. But then... Why do we have matter and antimatter in THIS universe? Some matter didn't get transferred into its opposite matter because of the mechanics of a black hole?

[ripponesan]

This might be a fine article, but i just cant force myself reading such a wall of text in a game forum.
You might catch some dudes in an appropriate forum tho.

[iijjii]

If the universe is infinite, and has no beginning but has an end, and the beginning equals the end (0=1, or rock 9sdkjhfklajdhsfsd = rock 8qwkejdhqjlwhedkjqwhdkjqwhdwhw12342314), does that mean there is no beginning and no end, therefore the universe is infinite?!?!


If there are infinitely many black holes in one universe creating an infinite amount of universes, and universes come in pairs that are inverses of each other, how do you know which pair's inverse is which?

why does the black hole gain in size exponentially when matter is accelerated at the speed of light into it? Does that suggest that there is an infinite amount of mass in an infinite universe? What does speed have to do with it?

does this mean that for every empty ice cream cone, there is a corresponding ice cream cone with ice cream in it? are there infinitely many ice creams and ice cream cones?

+1 for theory if so.

i dont think gravity works the way you say it does though, so i am afraid it might not work out.

[Neichus]

I'm not entirely sure of the exact structure or purpose of your post, so I apologize if I tackle your ideas out of order that they were presented.

First, I want to clarify something for you. Entropy is the exact opposite of what you said: it is a measure of disorder and that it will increase in any closed system. The increase in order and complexity on planet Earth comes at the expense of energy put into it from outside sources, namely the sun which overall is a state of increasing disorder. As for the universe as a whole we do not know if it is a closed system or not, but assuming it is then eventually it will suffer what is referred to as "heat death" where everything is homogenized completely into one giant amorphous spread of matter. "So this is how the world ends/Not with a bang but with a whimper."

Second, evolution as a biological process has led to greater complexity over time but it is most certainly not a singular direction. In fact there are more parasites on this planet than "normal" organisms, and parasites are almost universally simpler than their hosts. If you're talking about the universe as a whole having an evolutionary nature I think it's a very interesting concept, as the idea of self-organization has taken hold and that one does not need a complex cause (i.e. an intelligent designer) to have a complex result (an ordered cosmos). I'm excited to see what the future holds as we get a chance to explore other worlds more and see if life is common (indicating that matter has a high propensity to self-organize) or not.

Similarly while it's true that humans try to find "order out of chaos" you have to understand that such is the function of the brain as a whole. This universe is a kaleidoscope of information, far more than can actually be useful. The function of our sensory systems is as much to edit information and remove the excess as it is to find patterns; more information is lost before it reaches consciousness than I think you appreciate. There's just no need for it. Now, the million dollar question is whether this whole process is arbitrary or actually has some connection to reality. I would argue that while it must have some correlational relationship it does not have to correspond. That is, imagine your computer desktop. There is probably an icon of a recycling bin on it somewhere. Now, do you think that the picture of that recycling bin has anything to do with the true nature of what it is? Probably not. It could be a waste basket, or a toilet, or anything else that you want it to; in that regard the icon is entirely arbitrary and therefore meaningless. But would you say that dragging the last 5 hours of work onto said icon is meaningless? Probably not. So similarly I'd argue that while the way we experience the world may be arbitrary, it likely has some correlation to the underlying structure as guaranteed by evolution (creatures that didn't act in accordance with the structure of the universe and don't move out of the way of boulders, whether they be "real" or merely "representations," don't live very long).

With this in mind, I think you rely too much on visual analogy. As you say, we call things a square because that is how we order them. What I think you fail to appreciate is our entire mental thought process is based on visual analogy. When you say things like, "I believe that the paper analogy works when describing this situation" you're going out on a limb because an analogy is at best an approximation that attempts to capture an aspect of what you are attempting to describe. However, analogies are better used to explain than they are to draw conclusions. I've never heard of space-time "tearing" but you assume so because physical objects tear when stretched, even though we have no reason to believe that space-time should behave like that. Similarly you should look a bit into the actual cosmology of what we are studying. There are many theories (such as M-brane) theories that are attempting to account for the creation of universes using extra-universal mechanisms. The interesting thing is that there is no time outside of our universe in some of these, so asking causal questions has no meaning either; you can't wonder whether you need to account for something existing for "forever" if time isn't there. Indeed, all of our concepts of causation fall apart without time, but since we're built the way we are we just can't (visually) imagine how it would work otherwise.

Anyway, this has already grown long so I'll just end it here.

p.s. If you're interested in "something out of nothing" look up more about the quantum vacuum and zero point energy. It's strange, to say the least.

[mayco]

I stopped reading when you took an entire paragraph explaining that 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rock, but in another 'language' uno rock + uno rock = would still equal 2 rocks.

p.s. I was a bear in another life.

[Fuzzzie]

Mod Warning: If you cant be bothered to read a post then don't respond.

[Neichus]

can you make a long story short for us?

What I got out of it is:
-Humanity is destined to destroy itself (don't know why this is included, it has nothing to do with the rest of the post)
-A ramble about whether there is an Unmoved Mover that started the universe
-Bit of a poking at epistemology and whether we can know anything, mixed in with some discussion of symbolism in understanding
-An extended discussion based on the misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics
-A bit of a fumble I don't understand concerning the conservation of matter/energy and the subsequent necessity/possibility (?) of reincarnation
-And a final fast dodge back to cosmology, the fate of the universe/creation of other universes, and the idea that an expanding universe will tear along the "weakest" points (in his argument, black holes)

Hence why I take a shot at a few points, but I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to get at.

[Deleted]

What I got out of it is:
Hence why I take a shot at a few points, but I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to get at.

"Shit he learned in school part one"

[Deleted]

I'm not entirely sure of the exact structure or purpose of your post, so I apologize if I tackle your ideas out of order that they were presented.

First, I want to clarify something for you. Entropy is the exact opposite of what you said: it is a measure of disorder and that it will increase in any closed system. The increase in order and complexity on planet Earth comes at the expense of energy put into it from outside sources, namely the sun which overall is a state of increasing disorder. As for the universe as a whole we do not know if it is a closed system or not, but assuming it is then eventually it will suffer what is referred to as "heat death" where everything is homogenized completely into one giant amorphous spread of matter. "So this is how the world ends/Not with a bang but with a whimper."

Second, evolution as a biological process has led to greater complexity over time but it is most certainly not a singular direction. In fact there are more parasites on this planet than "normal" organisms, and parasites are almost universally simpler than their hosts. If you're talking about the universe as a whole having an evolutionary nature I think it's a very interesting concept, as the idea of self-organization has taken hold and that one does not need a complex cause (i.e. an intelligent designer) to have a complex result (an ordered cosmos). I'm excited to see what the future holds as we get a chance to explore other worlds more and see if life is common (indicating that matter has a high propensity to self-organize) or not.

Similarly while it's true that humans try to find "order out of chaos" you have to understand that such is the function of the brain as a whole. This universe is a kaleidoscope of information, far more than can actually be useful. The function of our sensory systems is as much to edit information and remove the excess as it is to find patterns; more information is lost before it reaches consciousness than I think you appreciate. There's just no need for it. Now, the million dollar question is whether this whole process is arbitrary or actually has some connection to reality. I would argue that while it must have some correlational relationship it does not have to correspond. That is, imagine your computer desktop. There is probably an icon of a recycling bin on it somewhere. Now, do you think that the picture of that recycling bin has anything to do with the true nature of what it is? Probably not. It could be a waste basket, or a toilet, or anything else that you want it to; in that regard the icon is entirely arbitrary and therefore meaningless. But would you say that dragging the last 5 hours of work onto said icon is meaningless? Probably not. So similarly I'd argue that while the way we experience the world may be arbitrary, it likely has some correlation to the underlying structure as guaranteed by evolution (creatures that didn't act in accordance with the structure of the universe and don't move out of the way of boulders, whether they be "real" or merely "representations," don't live very long).

With this in mind, I think you rely too much on visual analogy. As you say, we call things a square because that is how we order them. What I think you fail to appreciate is our entire mental thought process is based on visual analogy. When you say things like, "I believe that the paper analogy works when describing this situation" you're going out on a limb because an analogy is at best an approximation that attempts to capture an aspect of what you are attempting to describe. However, analogies are better used to explain than they are to draw conclusions. I've never heard of space-time "tearing" but you assume so because physical objects tear when stretched, even though we have no reason to believe that space-time should behave like that. Similarly you should look a bit into the actual cosmology of what we are studying. There are many theories (such as M-brane) theories that are attempting to account for the creation of universes using extra-universal mechanisms. The interesting thing is that there is no time outside of our universe in some of these, so asking causal questions has no meaning either; you can't wonder whether you need to account for something existing for "forever" if time isn't there. Indeed, all of our concepts of causation fall apart without time, but since we're built the way we are we just can't (visually) imagine how it would work otherwise.

Anyway, this has already grown long so I'll just end it here.

p.s. If you're interested in "something out of nothing" look up more about the quantum vacuum and zero point energy. It's strange, to say the least.

Thanks for the reply. I've learned A LOT from your post and I appreciate every point you make. I'm only 15 years old and enjoy cosmology but don't know a great deal about it. I'll research into the what you suggestion because you know a great deal more than me! =)

---------- Post added 2011-05-06 at 07:35 PM ----------

What I got out of it is:
-Humanity is destined to destroy itself (don't know why this is included, it has nothing to do with the rest of the post)
-A ramble about whether there is an Unmoved Mover that started the universe
-Bit of a poking at epistemology and whether we can know anything, mixed in with some discussion of symbolism in understanding
-An extended discussion based on the misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics
-A bit of a fumble I don't understand concerning the conservation of matter/energy and the subsequent necessity/possibility (?) of reincarnation
-And a final fast dodge back to cosmology, the fate of the universe/creation of other universes, and the idea that an expanding universe will tear along the "weakest" points (in his argument, black holes)

Hence why I take a shot at a few points, but I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to get at.

Now you phrase it like that, my post is poorly structured to say the least, but I find this sort of stuff interesting and would like to learn more about it.

[Deleted]

I don't really know your point. But at least it was interesting reading your ideas.

Yes, I did read all of it. I'm interested in these things.
Sadly, it's hard to wrap your head around something complex like this if it isn't in your native language.

[Deleted]

It seems to me that a writer who is so articulate and so passionate can prevent destruction just with their words.

[Badpaladin]

A good place to start with learning this sort of stuff is The Universe series that aired on The History Channel. All the episodes are on Netflix streaming. They do cover some topics that are difficult to understand without some background in physics, but for the most part it's great in getting a lot of stuff down. They have a lot of the top physicsts and astronomers in the world explaining a lot of stuff, so you're really hearing from the best.

After that I'd start reading more wikipedia articles. Despite the fact that some idiots still think Wikipedia isn't credible, it's easily the best source of information on the web, especially when it comes to things like science and mathematics.

From what I read in your OP, it seems like you have a lot of learning to do. I'd jump to it.

[Neichus]

Now you phrase it like that, my post is poorly structured to say the least, but I find this sort of stuff interesting and would like to learn more about it.

Sorry, it wasn't particularly kind of me to phrase it like that; just me being a snob with 10 years on you. It's better to think about things at all than just placidly accept the reality presented to you.

Also, for future endeavors I'd recommend making shorter posts. Try to find a single point and expound on it in a couple of paragraphs, even if this means cutting out much of the back explanation. It makes it more likely people will engage you in a discussion. Otherwise you get what you see here: a lot of "TL;DR"s.

Edit: you may also want to refrain from "this may hurt your head" in the title. The upside is that it's more likely to draw people here since it's provocative, the downside is that they're drawn here to show you that they're smarter than you. Tends to get the whole thing off on the wrong foot.

[Destruktion]

That is one big wall o' text alright. I'm going to go ahead and concur with Nixxy. You go off on so many goddamned tangents there is virtually no chance that you aren't stoned.

As for the expansion of the universe, it won't expand until it 'rips.' Matter will continue to spread out over the course of unfathomable amounts of time until particles are so far apart that they can no longer interact: the death of the universe.
Now, obviously I have no mathematical/physical basis for this theory, but it makes more sense than the universe suddenly contracting/crunching.

[The Leo]

First of all, let me begin by saying that I appreciate, and even sympathize with many of your views and theories. Especially the parallel between Humanity's strive for order and an ideological utopia to the evolution of the Universe. That is almost certainly positive for our future as a race, as I'm sure you'd be aware. However, this also very nearly invalidates your somewhat tangential aside on a nuclear holocaust, for as we strive to create a more structured and peaceable society, so too, inversely, does the probability with which we will eliminate ourselves with chaos.

For your approach on reincarnation, I, too, had been contemplating a similar occurrence. Yet, I drew inspiration from the theoretical principles upon which the foundation of teleportation might function, I.E. one hydrogen atom is equivalent to another, and if one was to be moved in such a matter, those molecules and particles dispersed, and an exact replica reassembled elsewhere. It really does not seem to be a quantum leap in logicality, however I will not invoke religion here in concerns to rebirth or sustained existences.

I hope the moderators take favor upon this, for I speak in a purely scientific tone, wishing harm to no one, regardless of their personal beliefs. As per intelligent design, the romantic in me hopes it to be true, and the logician in me is also somewhat finding it hard to ignore some of the evidence that has been arrayed before me. However, I believe at this edge of Existence and Everything, we must be cautious in how or what we deem to be "logical". If we go beyond the cosmological constants and scientific rulings of our known universe, strange things relative to our own understanding may come to pass as logic, and at this point, we play in the Study of the Gods, nearly blind with little in means to divine a clear path. It is, however, in my humble opinion, that the only Designer that can be is one of omnipotence.

As for the strain upon the brain, do not underestimate the intricate complexity of the human mind, even though public eye has shed upon it a mostly satirical light upon it. Few things known to Man can claim the status of its enigmatic processes. 0=1, in regards to the amount of matter and energy at the beginning and end of the Universe, is easily understandable, if only one looks at it from a different angle. For example, the Law of Conservation of Mass, or Energy, or Momentum; take your pick, whereas each one states that the amount of the unit in question will, in the initial and the final, in some way, equal to each other.

Happy Deep Thinking, Friends.

[komi54]

The fate of humanity is undecided and while it is highly unrealistic to assume an alien invasion in our lifetime will annihilate life as we know it, nuclear proliferation is increasing globally and so our knowledge of war is widening. With this increase in knowledge and power, we are able to destroy humanity through nuclear devices many times over if we chose to do so. It’s not a question of if we choose to do it; it’s a question of when we will do it. Will we survive a nuclear attack on a global scale? Probably not, no; unless there are protocols to mitigate an attack such as protection shelters, but such protection is expensive and won’t be available for you and me. If you’re rich then you’re in the ‘club’. Of course, it’s the elites then will be unaffected from a widescale nuclear attack compared to the rest of humanity. However that’s only if, not when, protection has been devised. The question of ‘are we prepared’ is perhaps imperative in assuring humanities survival.

As technological innovation increases, so does risk. However, without risk technological innovation couldn’t occur and so humanity wouldn’t develop. The proportionality between technology and risk is related to a much larger design of evolution, which in itself is a multidimensional process. Notice I used the word ‘design’ when referring to evolution. I’m inferring to the existence of an intelligent designer - not a God. We live in very complex Universe and in our knowledge of its existence, we have discovered how and to some extent why the matter within it functions, but we haven’t discovered why how the universe itself exists and came into existence. The notion of an intelligent designer is a paradox when explaining the existence of the universe. Questions arise such as, ‘if an intelligent designer created the universe, who created the intelligent designer and who created them?’ I accept the idea that the universe must have been created from something, but I can’t understand what exactly. We should dismiss any ideas of an infinite series of intelligent designers, all of which are identical and perhaps invest in a theory which views each designer as individual, unique and perhaps not intelligent at all. It is by sheer chance that you and I came into existence. If so, this can be applied to the universe and therefore, the universe came into existence from chance events and not at the will of an intelligent designer. Imagine a random arrangement of matter. This arrangement has a physical existence, but it has no human face value such that it takes the shape of a square, but in fact is not a square in the eyes of the universe. It is human nature to codify matter around us into individual groups, although this arrangement of matter is just that, an arrangement of matter.

This notion leads itself onto purely philosophical assumptions such as ‘red is not red’ and ‘a chair is not a chair. It becomes a chair if you name it that’. This is a degenerate approach to the existence of the universe as it attempts to decipher the foundations of knowledge from which we learn from until all set laws and beliefs are meaningless. New beliefs are extensions of old beliefs, and if old beliefs are defunct so are new beliefs. An extension of this theory is that humanity has learnt nothing since their existence as their knowledge is only true to Earth. This is of course, false. Mathematics is a universal language. A language which can explain the universe in some detail and its laws are consistent beyond Earth. Such as a 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks on Earth as it does on Mars. The key here is to see beyond the numerical value of the numbers themselves and picture both rocks as two separate physical quantities such that 9 rock + 5 rock = 2 rocks where 9 rock is in fact 1 rock and 5 rock is in fact 1 rock. Furthermore, 7ysyga7 rock + 637sa rock = 23sd rock. The numerical language denoted has no relevance beyond planet Earth as so this theory does relate to aforesaid philosophical notions, although if you add both physical quantities together, you will get 2 wherever and whatever those quantities are in the universe. Base 10 is only used because we have 10 fingers. This is logical. Other lifeforms in the universe could have 8 fingers and so their mathematical foundations will use base 8.

Another element in the multidimensional component of evolution is that humanity attempts to make order out of chaos. Entropy states that as the universe ages, it will become more ordered and to some degree logical. As the arrow of time continues to unfold, humanity and the universe in general becomes more ordered day by day as humanity forges its way to achieve an ordered Utopian society. Such attempts are visible today such as the EU. Equally, the expansion of the universe further separates galaxies apart and as matter condenses, stars will diminish and no longer burn. The overall process leaves the universe in such an ordered state where entropy no longer occurs and the universe ceases to exist. On a scale from 0 to 1, 0 represents the big bang and 1 denotes the death of the universe. Between 0 and 1 chaos occurs and in this chaos, an infinite number of outcomes are possible; though each outcome will always tend itself to 1. If infinity is bounded between 0 and 1, surely this is not infinity and it’s impossible for an infinite number of outcomes to exist you may ask? Your calculator can solve this problem for you. Divide any number by 0 and the answer is undefined because 0 is any and all numbers. This problem can best be pictured through an ice-cream cone. The point of the cone represents the number 1 – the end of the universe. The number 0 is any and all numbers so the bottom of the cone (the part that supports your ice-cream) represents 0 – the big bang. Beyond 0, the sides of the cone end and it’s no longer possible to understand what’s beyond this point since the physical matter of the ice-cream doesn’t exist i.e. it’s undefined. This is where the laws of the universe break down. The narrowing of the ice-cream cone represents entropy in action. As the universe ages, the number of possible outcomes decreases but remember that any outcome always converges to 1. There is still matter outside 0 and that matter is something, not nothing. Ultimately this idea implies that the universe if infinite and has no beginning but has an end. It also implies that the end is also the beginning – the singularity. Remember this ice-cream cone in bent so that the tip (1) in is underneath the base (0). Therefore 0=1. The universe is a closed cyclic system and the fact that both energy and matter are conserved proves this. This is a difficult concept to understand for many.

It is widely believed that the Universe spontaneously sprung into existence 13.7 billion years ago in a process Scientists refer to as ‘The Big Bang’. If the Universe is a closed system then all energy and equally matter is conserved and therefore finite – ‘all energy is converted from one form to another’. How can such a system arise from nothing and isn’t this a contradiction in itself? This implies that before the Universe existed, there had to be something otherwise a system whereby energy is conserved would be impossible. When referring to the Universe’s existence, it’s ignorant to assume something is impossible because it doesn’t conform to those laws within the universe. I came to the conclusion that there had to be something before the Universe by simply using deductive logic. For example, a dog and a cat come together to produce a human baby makes no logically sense whatsoever. Equally, the universe came into existence from nothing makes no sense unless nothing is something. What that something is however, is not known. Again perhaps the logical approach would be to imply that another universe existed before this one, and another before that. Eventually a ‘chain’ of universes existed and a death of one universe is the start of another. The term ‘chain’ has an element of ambiguity attached to it as this pattern may not be a linear process. The Universe could coexist alongside an infinite amount of other universes called multiverses at the same instant. These universes could potentially be identical in their nature, some could be different and some may not even exist at all. Matter in this universe could be paralleled in other Universes, such as your existence or the identical positioning and arrangement of matter. To define what existed before the Universe is essentially a meaningless question because the universe is everything and contains everything.

If the Universe is finite as opposed to infinite, when I die, I will at some point be reincarnated as the energy within this closed system is conserved.' The probability of being' born again' (given life) is somewhere between 0 and 1 as opposed to being impossible and as the universe isn't expanding for an infinite amount of time - no matter if it is spontaneously created and its mass added to the current value of the universe. So the chance of matter being arranged out of this finite matter to form life is between 0 to 1 and is dependent on its location within the universe. Life is more likely to form given sufficient conditions but as you say yourself, it's possible that stars may habour life. Therefore, the chance of life throughout the universe is increased dramatically as life may not be carbon based/dependent on water. However, one theory to the inevitable fate of our universe is heat death where all the mass in the universe is converted to energy completely. Thus meaning any reincarnation not inevitable. If all matter would remain constant then reincarnation should theoretically be inevitable and eternal life inevitable (assuming our consciousness can be reincarnated and I can still be me again), but I don't think it is. And if it were at all possible there's no reason why we don't have any recollection of ourselves prior to this life, so again it's impossible to still have the thoughts from your previous life. However, what I am suggesting is that life becomes more frequent. Imagine a finite Universe where energy within this universe is conserved. Over time, the probability of life emerging increases (perhaps entropy explains this further) but all life is independent from the other. When I was born, I was unaware of position within the Universe. If I am born again, I will again be unaware of my position. So essentially, the frequency of life increases if the universe is finite, but life occurs only once if the universe is infinite.
If there is exactly the same amount of matter inside the universe today as there was momentarily after the big bang, it is evident that it has stretched out. What causes this stretching - (Dark energy).' Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.' I will return to a proposed form of dark energy further into this. Let's presume that dark energy accelerated all the matter in our universe so that the universe is expanding.

The question is how far will the universe expand until it 'rips'? Imagine a piece of square paper with writing on. The paper is stretched uniformly in all directions and it is certain that it will rip at one point as it is stretched further. Apply this to the universe on a whole. The universe is essentially a stretched out piece of paper and the ink on the paper (the letters) means some places on the paper are heavier than others. If it rips due to gravity acting equally on space-time throughout the universe, does this create another universe as the matter from the 'ripping' universe is cascaded into the new universe through the rip (singularity). Equally black holes are 'words' on the paper. Stretch the paper uniformly and it will tear exactly where the black hole is and matter is transferred from one medium to another - from one universe to another. However spacetime only rips where the black hole is as that is the weakest point in the universe. They are the weakest because they stretch space-time so much that if the universe rips and ceases to expand, logically blackholes will be the point where it tears. Imagine twisting... a paper clip until it's weak and break.

If the universe expanded until the gravitational field reached 1 where the universe is in its ultimate state of being due to entropy or if the universe expanded so much that the gravity of a black hole was greater than the total gravity in the universe, it rips spacetime. Oppositely the point at which the universe is in equilibrium - THAT SMALL POINT where it stops expanding and begins to contract - 'the big crunch' - just that small point where displacement is 0 and where the gravitational field equalled exactly 1.
If you stretch something it will rip at the weakest place. If you stretch the universe it will rip at its weakest places - black holes. If the universe keeps expanding then spacetime should rip. I believe that the paper analogy works when describing this situation. If there's an infinite no. of black holes then an infinite no. will rip along spacetime and an infinite no. of universes are created. The black hole will grow exponentially in size as more matter is accelerated at the speed of light into another medium as spacetime rips. This could explain why the universal speed limit is the speed of light because that's the speed at which matter was transferred from the previous universe into the new expanding universe. But in this universe everything is opposite and could be the total opposite to the universe which it came from. If most of the universe was antimatter then the universe which it came from must be mostly matter. I said earlier that universes come in pairs, and one is the inverse of another. But then... Why do we have matter and antimatter in THIS universe? Some matter didn't get transferred into its opposite matter because of the mechanics of a black hole?

Thanks for blowing my mind man.

[DownButStillOut]

You found my Internet Diary, didn't you?
Eh yeah this thread is beyond the lines of when I think about the Universe, but differenting on a few key subjects which I dont want to get into detail because CARPELTUNNEL, OH GOD.
Very Intresting read imo.

[This name sucks]

holy shit just scrolling through that without reading it at all hurt my eyes...

[haxartus]

Spacetime doesn't work this way though. Black holes aren't that special too. They obey all of the laws of thermodynamics and there is no destruction or creation of information (at least we hope so). They also lose energy and diminish with time. They do that very slowly but they are eventually going to disappear. The idea is that when virtual particles are created in pairs very close to the event horizon, sometimes one of them is sucked in before they can collide and disappear. The reason nothing can escape is because all paths (light cones) are pointing towards the center of the black hole. So, when a virtual particle is sucked in, the other particle becomes a real particle and the particle inside the black hole has in a way "negative energy". This way the total energy of the black hole diminishes. The new particle is created in the edge of the event horizon and it escapes. Though it appears this destroys information and new information is created, it's believed that there is information escaping from the black hole via quantum tunneling, so the Hawking radiation obeys the conservation laws and doesn't create or destroy information.

[Defiant]

I do love how "strange/interesting" the universe is and what make's it what it is, however!
Iv been down the pub all night and came to the conclusion:- Who the f**k think's like this? No offence like, but if your thinking like this and that much then how can that be healthy.
Ok I'm a science man over religion and that science is, how can we call it? Best guess? But to be thinking like this and to be posting it on a forum such as mmo kinda scare's me!

Interesting read but hmmmm I wish you all the best!